Skip to comments.Expect more Sandy Hooks, not fewer
Posted on 12/17/2012 10:54:13 AM PST by Perseverando
Exclusive: Joseph Farah declares, 'No amount of gun control can save us from ourselves'
As American politics and culture turn further away from God, they also run to and fro looking for answers to rising crime, violence, mayhem, rape and sexual immorality of all kinds in all the wrong places.
Predictably, this is happening once again as the nations media and political elite react in horror, as they should, to the massacre in Newtown, Conn., at the Sandy Hook Elementary School.
They focus with laser-like futility and counter-productiveness on inanimate objects as the source of the evil.
If only we could pass new, tougher, more restrictive laws to obtain firearms or ban them altogether surely there would be no more Sandy Hooks, they say.
Little do they realize the evil is not to be found in the guns. Its to be found in their own hearts of darkness.
In fact, one well-placed firearm at Sandy Hook, in the hands of a trained teacher, administrator or security guard could have prevented the entire slaughter just as they have averted countless other murders and mass murders in the past.
But, of course, thats just a Band-Aid on a culture mortally wounded by its abandonment of God and His righteous laws.
And thats why we all need to expect more Sandy Hooks, not fewer.
What should we expect when we not only prohibit weapons of self-defense in our schools, but when we banish the Creator from them?
Next year will mark the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court decisions that removed prayer from the public schools of America. Just look what has happened since.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Too bad we cannot have a national discussion on the REAL cause of all of these horrible massacres......MENTAL ILLNESS....making guns the issue will solve nothing other than disarming law abiding citizens.
Disagree. The cause was demonic possession. There is no legitimate psychological explanation for shooting up a kindergarten class. The last thing we need is to blame this on mental illness and use knee-jerk reactions to lock up anyone that anyone claims is crazy, which is exactly how Hitler and Stalin consolidated power. This country needs a revival. There are millions of “loners” and “socially akward” Americans that wouldn’t harm a fly.
More families with guns in the past than today. But we didn't have mass murders targeting school children until recently.
That offer a hint about where the genesis of the problem lies... it's not gun ownership.
More families with guns in the past than today. But we didn't have mass murderers targeting school children until recently.
That offer a hint where the problem lies... it's not gun ownership.
I don’t disagree with you. Look at DeFeo, they guy who murdered his family at Amityville. He was clearly possessed by an evil force. Look at Hitler. Look at Manson. I don’t deny for one minute that evil and demonic forces are at work in this world. In the case of Adam Lanza, it seems to me he had severe mental illness. My point is we need to discuss THIS PART of the equation....otherwise.....the liberals will use these massacres to push their agenda which is of course to take away the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms.
I cant shake the feeling BS/BOs friends had something to do with the massacre to try and take away firearms.
If you read the Bible, than you know that Jesus recognized and spoke of Satan. I have run in to many “Christians” who say there is no Satan, and who think that God is a big, fat Buddha God who sits in heaven and laughs at the antics of the people here on earth.
We need better mental health—we once had it—but look around at all the crazies wandering the streets—this isn’t healthy or good for them. This poor loner should have been in an Asylum for the insane—as long ago. He saw spotted as a student. Yes, schools should be better armed as well. We must protect what we value.
So would you lock up all loners? Who decides which ones get locked up? A doctor? A jury of peers? Doesn’t seem to me that locking this guy up would have been constitutional. Heck, even if he was locked up, Satan simply would have chosen the model citizen involved in politics and community service to do his work... kind of like John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy back in the days when people were in fact locked up for no reason. Maybe we should bring back witch trials while we are at it.
Has there been any information published about the religious practices of the shooter and his mother?
Disagree. The cause was demonic possession. There is no legitimate psychological explanation for shooting up a kindergarten class.
Disagree. The other poster was correct (IMO). This is about mental illness.
You pretty much say it yourself... no legitimate psychological explanation. Exactly right. Hence, a psychotic state. Have you ever seen a person in one? I have. Too many times. And what they see and believe cannot be described or explained. My mother (RIP) suffered from bipolar disorder, and became dangerously psychotic when she went off of her meds.
How would you propose dealing with those suffering ‘demonic possession’ as opposed to those who are mentally ill? And how do we tell the difference?
I don’t know what the answer is or if there is one. I want to continue living in a free country where I can own weapons and choose to be a loner without a doctor or relative having the ability to lock me up without due process. And demonic possession is real. I am not even a religious man... you can check my post history, but there is no way a human brain can trick itself to do this. It wasn’t like Columbine where the shooters thought they were settling a score with peers who wronged and outcast them.
Strict gun control works great in Mexico! 54,000 dead in the last six years. The U.S. Gov helping out by supplying thousands of true assault rifles to the international drug cartel terrorist crime syndicates.
You have never talked to a schizophrenic have you?
choose to be a loner without a doctor or relative having the ability to lock me up without due process.
I can see you’ve never had to deal with the mental health system.
Only 2 ways to get someone locked up (and even then only for 72 hours) - at least here in Maryland.
1) take the person to the ER, wait an eternity for the attending psychiatrist to examine the patient, and declare them a danger to self/others for an involuntary stay, or to agree to be admitted on their own.
2) Go to the circuit court and swear out a warrant for observation, and the cops pick the individual up and take them to the nearest hospital for observation (at which point it looks like #1 above).
In either scenario, within 72 hours a hearing with a master must be held, and they lean VERY strongly in favor of the patient, in terms of keeping them or releasing them.
I have to say that you have no idea what the human brain can convince itself of (and I count that as a really good thing). It completely freaked me out on more than one occasion. Their delusions are absolutely real to them.
That’s really not much of a statement without a time window included. If it ever happens again, the author can say, ‘see, I told you’, and if it doesn’t, then he says to just wait.
You have never talked to a schizophrenic have you?
An unbelievable experience that will have the sanest individuals questioning their own sanity.
That being said, my experience is limited to a dangerously psychotic bipolar individual.
I understand what you are saying, but
1. How can you change this while making sure constitutional rights are protected? Who decides who gets locked up? Judge? Doctor? Relative? Jury of peers? My sister is a raging b*tch and nobody in the family talks to her. Should we be allowed to have her detained on our own word that she is crazy?
And under what basis if no crime is committed? You can obviously act on threats and known planned conspiracies, but those laws already exist.
2. I have seen nothing in the news, even in the most sensationalist stories, that would tell me that this man needed to be locked up and someone dropped the ball. He was obviously a loner and socially inept, perhaps slightly autistic, but that alone doesn’t make one a danger. There are millions of those out there that live and will continue to live non-violent, criminal free lives.
I have also had a close association with someone I think was either bi-polar or borderline personality. In some ways that is even scarier because most of the time they act perfectly sane but when they go off their delusions are almost as far fetched as a schizos.
Brains/minds are just as subject to defects, breakdowns, injuries and disease as any other part of the body. Adam Lanza was apparently mentally defective from birth and his family knew it. They couldn't help but know it.
OK, some misunderstandings ...
Your sister (the raging bitch) would not be committed, as no trained psychiatrist is going to sign the committment papers. You (the family) don’t get the final word. They don’t lock folks up on your say so. It is the careful consideration of doctors and judges.
My mother had committed no crime (only cuz they never caught her drinking and driving), but she was certainly a danger to herself and others. The shrinks concurred.
I don’t think we have enough facts yet to determine if your #2 is accurate or not.
Your fear of loners and the socially inept being locked up for no reason are unwarranted. It is VERY difficult to get someone committed against their will.
“Your fear of loners and the socially inept being locked up for no reason are unwarranted. It is VERY difficult to get someone committed against their will.”
I understand that, but you have been implying that this needs to change. How would you change the mental health system to make it easy to commit someone against their will without tamping on their constitutional rights? People all over are saying we need more laws and mental health needs to change. My point is I’d rather be free than allow a liberal shrink and/or a liberal judge be given the authority to send someone to the nut hut for their opinion (subjective or objective) that that person may commit a crime.
I think you’ve misunderstood me, as I’ve not been suggesting that it should change to make it easier to commit someone against their will. I was responding to what I thought was your opinion that it’s already too easy.
As difficult and painful as it is, I’d have it no other way, frankly.
It was my job as a family member to “steal” mom’s car when it got too dangerous for her to drive (psychosis is not a good prescription for driving), and had she owned weapons, I’d have removed them as well. I didn’t need an external force to let me know what needed to be done, but in all honesty, we had to swim denial before we got to that point.
I guess we’re pretty much in agreement.